Re: 12805: Arthur replies to Kashan - Guacimal and the HSG press release (fwd)

[Bob Corbett <corbetre@webster.edu>]

From: Tttnhm@aol.com

In a message dated 8/20/2002 8:46:38 PM W. Europe Daylight Time,
MKarshan@aol.com writes:

<<  What exactly was the pick up truck full of people trying to do on that
day?
 None of the correspondence or press releases have been specific on this?
  >>

Michelle Karshan asked the above question concerning the violent events at
the Guacimal orange plantation on 27 May 2002.

As I understand it, there were two vehicles involved, and they were bringing
members and supporters of the legally-registered 'First of May-Batay Ouvriye'
union federation from St Michel de l'Attalaye and Cap-Haitien to a rally at
Guacimal. The rally was in support of St. Raphael Guacimal Workers' Union and
the St. Raphael Guacimal Planters' Association. These two organisations,
which are part of the 'First of May-Batay Ouvriye' union federation, had been
in dispute with the owners and foremen at the Guacimal S.A. orange plantation
for the previous 18 months or so. The rally aimed to press these
organisations' demands for
1) an end to the discrimation against the organisations' members who were
being denied use of the plantation land to grow crops during the off-season,
and
2) an end to the newly introduced practice of share-cropping - the deduction
of a portion of the planters' annual harvest - imposed by the plantation
foremen and guards.

I think that the reports of the incident at the plantation on 27 May by the
National Coalition for Haitian Rights and the Haiti Progres newspaper are
reasonably clear in relation to the above.

With all due respect I think that the 27 May incident raises much more
interesting and relevant questions than the one posed by Michelle Karshan. A
few of those questions are:

Why did neither the Ministry of Social Affairs or the Ministry of Justice
respond to the letters from the Batay Ouvriye union federation warning of the
danger of violence at the plantation? These letters were sent over the year
before when the Guacimal S.A. management not only refused to recognise the
existence of the workers' union but used intimidation and violence to try and
breakit.

Why were the police absent from the scene on 27 May when advance notice of
Batay Ouvriye's intention to hold the rally had been?

Why did local Lavalas Family KASEK and ASEK members take it upon themselves
to organise an attack on the Batay Ouvriye rally? According to the
Constitution only the police (and the Army until it is officially abolished)
can enforce law and order.

Why has there been no statement from the authorities about, and no
investigation into, the murder of two Batay Ouvriye members during the attack?

Why were 11 people - two journalists, three vehicle drivers and five Batay
Ouvriye members from St Michel de L'Attalaye - held by the local police?

Why was a helicopter with riot police sent from Port-au-Prince to St Raphael
to take the 11 people held by the local police to the capital?

Why did Secretary of  State of Communications, Mario Dupuy, characterise the
Batay Ouvriye demonstrators as "terrorists"?

Who ordered the police and helicopter to override the local judicial
authorities by removing the 11 people from St Raphael?

Why - if they had committed a crime - were they not transferred to the seat
of the local judiciary, Grand Riviere du Nord?

Why was there no public rebuttal of Lavalas Family mayor of Milot, Moise
Jean-Charles' justification of the violent attack on the rally on the grounds
that the head of state had made a public committment to defend private
property?

Why were nine of these eleven people held in jails in Port-au-Prince without
being charged until 20 August? (Two journalists detained while covering the
event were released at the beginning of June)

Why, now that seven of them have been released without being charged with any
offence, has there been no statement by the authorities?

Why are two of nine still in the National Penitentiary nearly three months
since they were detained?

Why has the Democratic Convergence said absolutely nothing about the
detention without charge of the nine people?


There are many other unanswered questions, but that's enough to be going on
with?


Charles Arthur
Haiti Support Group